Ethnic Belonging in Laos: A Politico-Historical Perspective Grégoire Schlemmer To cite this version: Grégoire Schlemmer. Ethnic Belonging in Laos: A Politico-Historical Perspective. CHANGING LIVES. NEW PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIETY, POLITICS, AND CULTURE IN LAOS , 2017. hal- 01853834 HAL Id: hal-01853834 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01853834 Submitted on 21 Aug 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. CHAPTER Ethnic Belonging in Laos: 10 A Politico-Historical Perspective Grégoire Schlemmer Introduction Laos’ population of about six million is characterized by its dis- concerting ethnic complexity. A total of 49 official ethnic groups are officially recognized — of these, the largest group, the (ethnic) Lao, accounts for just over half of the population,1 while there may be about 10 times as many Lao language speakers in Thailand. It is a peculiar situation where many more members of the country’s domi- nant ethnicity live outside its borders, while minority groups of this country, grouped together, almost form the majority of the popula- tion. Who are these ethnic groups? How can one make sense of the reality of such a diversity of people? How do they live together and how does the state manage this diversity? These are some of the ques- tions we would like to address in this chapter, by drawing on existing studies and our own field research experience and materials.2 “Ethnic”: An Ambiguous Category In order to discuss ethnicity, we first need to determine what the term covers. This is where the problem begins. Indeed, the meaning attributed, explicitly or implicitly, to the notion of ethnicity varies depending on audiences and circumstances. These definitions are indi- cative of biases and issues that are woven around the understanding and the organization of populations labeled under this term. 251 252 Grégoire Schlemmer Ethnic Groups, Minorities or Highlanders? Although everyone is supposed to belong to an ethnic group, the term “ethnic” (sonphao), as it is used commonly in the Lao language, generally refers to all ethnic groups except the Lao. This is also true in many studies by governmental or non-governmental development organizations, which represent the main producer and source of infor- mation in Laos. Most studies dealing with ethnic issues distinguish be- tween the (ethnic) Lao and all other ethnic groups of Laos. The same distinction is applied to the field of tourism: going to see “the ethnic groups” means going to see populations that are not ethnically Lao. In its common usage, the term “ethnicity” is then associated with the minority. But de facto, it also excludes people from different nationali- ties residing in Laos — primarily, the Chinese and the Vietnamese.3 Implicitly, ethnicity therefore means a group with a distinctive culture that demographically, but also — and especially — politically, constitutes a minority. The notion of ethnicity conveys a set of stereotypes formed in contrast to the dominant Lao group. There is a distinction between, on the one hand, Buddhist Lao cultivating wet rice agriculture in the plains who have been integrated for a long time into states; and the “others,” animistic shifting (or “slash and burn”) cultivators, organized in tribes and living in the mountains. Putting aside preconceptions, these stereotypes are based, as is often the case, on some facts, though each criterion must be nuanced. The most structured opposition is the one that distinguishes between lowlanders and highlanders. Many generalizations about ethnic groups are, in fact, linked with their upland location, i.e. living in remote areas (that are often border areas) and practicing shifting cultivation. This geographical isolation (from the lowlands administrative centers’ point of view) is seen as one of the factors structuring “ethnic” life, which supposedly has remained unchanged and kept its “traditional” way of life. This Lao association of “ethnic” to mountains ( phu dō˛ i) and forests ( pa), lands of “savagery,” that contrasts with the “civilized” political center (muang), pervades preconceptions frequently associated with the pairing of majority and ethnic groups in the eyes of most tourists and many policymakers, such as modern vs. archaic, or its reverse — peoples corrupted by modern life vs. populations that have preserved their culture and are close to nature. Ethnic Belonging in Laos 253 A well-informed public would say that there are officially 49 eth- nic groups in Laos, divided across three broad categories — (i) Lao Lum or “lowland Lao”; (ii) Lao Theung or “Lao residing on the slopes of mountains”; and (iii) Lao Sung or “upland Lao” — or into four “ethno- linguistic groups” — (i) Mon-Khmer (or Austro-Asiatic, mainly the former Lao Theung); (ii) Tai-Kadai (former Lao Lum); (iii) Tibeto- Burmese; and (iv) Hmong-Mien or Meo-Yao (former Lao Sung). One may read in the general literature on the topic that the Mon-Khmer people, coming from India perhaps 3,000 years ago, are the indige- nous people of Laos. They are divided into many small groups in the south and the center (Katang, Makong, Xuay, Ta Oy, etc.), and are mainly represented by the Khmu in the north (in addition to Phong, Lamed, etc.). Some of these groups have preserved their cultural parti- cularities due to their remoteness, and others (in higher numbers) are seen as more marginalized groups that have been acculturated, following a long period of domination by the Lao. The Tai-Kadai (Tai, Phu Thay, Lue, Nhouan, etc.) are the dominant population, mostly occupying the plains and valleys bottom, where they live from wet rice agriculture. They are said to have come from South China around the first millennium, to have created several small kingdoms now incorporated into Laos (such as Xieng Khuang, Xieng Kheng, Sipsong Chau Tai, etc.) and to be mainly Buddhist (except the Black, White and Red Tai). This ethno-linguistic family includes the Lao people, who gave their name to the country. The Tibeto-Burman (Akha, Lahu, Phunoy, etc.) and the Hmong and Yao recently came from China (mostly in the second half of the 19th century) and reside on the mountaintops. Easily identified by their costumes, these groups (especially the Hmong and Yao) are supposedly characterized by their pride and independence, and even their bellicosity. This is the type of information one can find in the few books offering a sort of cataloguing of ethnic groups in Laos. For each group, information is given on their name, their history (which is basically a history of origin and their period of arrival in Laos), and a set of selected criteria (according to the Soviet ethnographic orthodoxy that Lao ethnographers inherited via Vietnamese anthropologists; these mains criteria are language, territory, culture, and economy). Main distinc- tive cultural traits of each group (e.g. baskets for the Mon-Khmer, weaving for the Tai, colorful embroidery for the Tibeto-Burman, etc.) are also depicted in these books. Area populated by Tibeto–Burmese, Austro-Asiatic, Tai and Hmong-mien speaking populations Phongsaly Area populated by Luang Namtha Tai, Austro-Asiatic and Hmong-mien Bokeo speaking populations Houaphan Oudomxai Luang Phrabang Luang Phrabang Xiengkhuang Sayabouri Vientiane Bolikhamxai Vientiane Area populated by Austro- Asiatic speaking Khammouanmomo populations Area populated by ethnic Lao Area populated by Tai and Austro- Asiatic speaking Savannakhetnn populations Salavan Main ethnic groups per province (in percentage) Xekong Vientiane capital Lao (92.6) Phou Thay (3.1) Hmong (1.4) PhongsalyKhmu (24.4)Akha (20.0)Phunoy (19.4) Luang NamthaKhmu (24.7)Akha (23.9) Lue (15.8) Pakse Champassak OudomxayKhmu (57.7)Hmong (13.1) Lue (12.2) Attapeu Bokeo Khmu (23.8) Lue (20.6) Lao (13.4) Luang Phrabang Khmu (45.9) Lao (28.6) Hmong (15.2) Huaphan Phou Thay (31.5) Lao (30.0) Hmong (20.3) Xayaboury Lao (63.4) Khmu (9.0) Lue (8.1) Xiengkhuang Lao (44.3) Hmong (34.2) Phou Thay (10.2) Vientiane Lao (63.8) Phou Thay (14.0) Khmu (12.5) Borikhamxay Phou Thay (41.0) Lao (40.2) Hmong (9.2) Khammuane Lao (59.4) Phou Thay (21.7) Makong (13.4) Savannakhet Lao (57.5) Phou Thay (18.9)Katang (8.7) Saravane Lao (60.0) Katang (13.3)Xuay (8.1) Sekong Katu (24.3)Triang (21.8) Harak (15.5) Champasack Lao (84.8) Lavy (4.9)Xuay (2.4) Attapeu Lao (36.9) Lavy (17.4)Oy (16.4) Source: 1995 census Map 10.1 Linguistic families distribution in Laos. Ethnic Belonging in Laos 255 This way of naming and classifying groups is the result of a long history based on how states have perceived the groups they have in- corporated. This history therefore has varied depending on the nature of these states, and the type of relations these states have maintained with their subjects. Let us now briefly examine the main stages of this process. Genealogy of Ethnic Classification Ancient kingdoms and principalities that once controlled the region did not seek to produce written reports on the populations they ruled. Ethnonyms may be found here and there in their chronicles. However, their use seems imprecise and many of them are no longer in effect today. Nonetheless, a structuring dualistic classification has emerged from these chronicles, marking a distinction between “Tai” and “Kha.” Skin color was used as a marker of difference and hierarchy in this classification: a common myth tells that the Kha and Tai emerged from a gourd, the former appearing black because they came out from a hole made with a firebrand, while the latter were white because their hole was made with a punch (Archaimbault 1973).